Medial temporal lobe atrophy patterns in early-versus late-onset amnestic Alzheimer’s disease

Background The medial temporal lobe (MTL) is hypothesized to be relatively spared in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD). Yet, detailed examination of MTL subfields and drivers of atrophy in amnestic EOAD is lacking. Methods BioFINDER-2 participants with memory impairment, abnormal amyloid-β and tau-PET were included. Forty-one amnestic EOAD individuals ≤65 years and, as comparison, late-onset AD (aLOAD, ≥70 years, n = 154) and amyloid-β-negative cognitively unimpaired controls were included. MTL subregions and biomarkers of (co-)pathologies were measured. Results AD groups showed smaller MTL subregions compared to controls. Atrophy patterns were similar across AD groups: aLOAD showed thinner entorhinal cortices than aEOAD; aEOAD showed thinner parietal regions than aLOAD. aEOAD showed lower white matter hyperintensities than aLOAD. No differences in MTL tau-PET or transactive response DNA binding protein 43-proxy positivity were found. Conclusions We found evidence for MTL atrophy in amnestic EOAD and overall similar levels to aLOAD of MTL tau pathology and co-pathologies. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13195-024-01571-z.

While prior research has investigated clinical, genetic or pathological differences in EOAD vs. LOAD, for example [3][4][5][6], many studies define EOAD only by age of onset.Thus, various clinical phenotypes, such as amnestic or non-amnestic EOAD [7], have been grouped together as EOAD [1].Due to this grouping, observed differences between EOAD vs. LOAD may not be applicable to all clinical phenotypes.For example, the medial temporal lobe (MTL) has previously been found to be relatively spared in EOAD compared to LOAD in several studies [8][9][10].However, it is unclear if this applies to amnestic EOAD given the common grouping of clinical phenotypes.Moreover, fine-grained changes in MTL subfield atrophy patterns have not been investigated.MTL subfields are heavily involved in memory function [11] but subserve different functions [12,13].Additionally, the cytoarchitectonic and functionally different MTL subfields are differently affected in AD and other neurodegenerative diseases [14][15][16].The involvement of the MTL in amnestic EOAD is not well characterized, therefore it is of importance to investigate whether the MTL is affected in amnestic EOAD and to what extent the atrophy pattern differs from the more common amnestic LOAD [17].
In addition to Aβ and NFT, co-pathologies are also common in AD [18] and can affect the clinical course of the disease as well as atrophy patterns in the brain [18][19][20].Common AD co-pathologies, such as cerebrovascular disease (CVD) or transactive response DNA binding protein 43 (TDP-43) pathology often occur in the MTL [21,22].Therefore, MTL atrophy patterns in amnestic AD are likely partially influenced by the presence of such co-pathologies.It has been suggested that co-pathologies are common in EOAD, albeit less than in LOAD, and contribute substantially to cognitive impairment in EOAD [5].However, it is unclear if this equally applies to all the phenotypes of EOAD including amnestic EOAD.
In this cross-sectional study we aim to investigate if MTL atrophy occurs in individuals with amnestic earlyonset cognitive impairment (aEOAD).To this end, we aim to compare MTL subfield differences across aEOAD with the amnestic LOAD (aLOAD) group and with cognitively normal controls as reference.Secondary aims include (I) investigating similar comparisons for neocortical composite regions in order to establish whether potential differences between aEOAD and aLOAD groups are specific to the MTL, and (II) assessing if common co-pathologies are present in aEOAD vs. aLOAD, and in comparison to healthy controls.Lastly, we explore if MTL atrophy is associated with AD pathologies and co-pathologies in the aEOAD group.Exploratory analyses focus on (I) cognitive performance in aEOAD and (II) comparisons with non-amnestic EOAD and LOAD groups.

Participants
We included 534 cognitively impaired from a memory clinic setting and unimpaired participants from population-based studies in the city of Malmö [23] older than 50 years from the Swedish BioFINDER-2 study (NCT03174938) who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and tau positron emission tomography (PET).The study was approved by the ethical review board in Lund, Sweden, and all study participants provided written informed consent.
Inclusion criteria for the amnestic EOAD (aEOAD) group, were (I) mild cognitive impairment (MCI, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) ≥ 24) or AD (MMSE ≥ 20; see details in [23]), (II) 50-65 years of age, and who (III) were Aβ and tau positive accordingly to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio and tau-PET respectively, and (IV) performed 1.5 standard deviations below age-and education-based norms on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) delayed word list recall [24].Additionally, patients between 65 and 70 years of age, who indicated their age of onset was before 65 on the Cognitive Impairment Questionnaire (CIMP-QUEST) and fulfilled all the other criteria were included as aEOAD.The amnestic LOAD group (aLOAD) included only patients with age ≥ 70 years while the other criteria were shared between aEOAD and aLOAD.The gap of five years between aEOAD and aLOAD was chosen to minimize the possibility that aEOAD cases were included in the aLOAD group.Additionally, in secondary analyses, we included non-amnestic EOAD (naEOAD) and LOAD (naLOAD) participants that had the same group definitions as aEOAD and aLOAD except that the non-amnestic groups performed within age-and education-based norms on the episodic memory test.We focused only on cases who were Aβ-and tau-positive to ensure that the observed memory or cognitive impairments were at least partly due to AD proteinopathies.Additionally, none of the included participants met the clinical criteria for PCA or the logopenic variant of PPA.
Two control groups were included, one younger control group (YCU) for aEOAD and one older control group (OCU) for aLOAD, given the inherent age differences between the patient groups.The control groups were (I) cognitively unimpaired (CU), (II) Aβ negative, (III) performed within age-and education-based norms on the ADAS-cog delayed word list recall, and (IV) were selected with the same age range as respective aEOAD or aLOAD group.
De Flores and colleagues [40] suggested that the ratio between anterior HC and parahippocampal cortex (measured with T1-ASHS) as a promising marker to assess the presence of TDP-43 pathology in dementia cases with AD neuropathologic change and was previously validated against post-mortem data.They propose a cut-off of 693.44 for this marker, indicating the presence of TDP-43 pathology for individuals with a ratio below this cut-off.Following their approach, a ratio between anterior HC volume and parahippocampal cortical thickness was calculated after regressing out ICV for anterior HC and age for both measures and the above-mentioned cut-off was applied.
As supplementary analyses, the Longitudinal Earlyonset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS) signature mean thickness, comprising primarily temporal and parietal regions, was calculated, see [41], and compared between groups.
All regions of interest were averaged across hemispheres.All regions of interest were z-scored to facilitate comparisons between the measures using Aβ-cognitively unimpaired individuals under the age of 40 from Bio-FINDER-2 (n = 99; MMSE > = 26) as reference group.

F]RO948 tau-PET
Tau-PET scans were acquired with a digital GE Discovery MI Scanner (General Electric Medical Systems).Tau-PET was performed 70-90 min post-injection of ~ 370 MBq of [ 18 F]RO948.Details of the PET reconstruction have been published previously [42].The Swedish Medical Products Agency and the local Radiation Safety Committee at Skåne University Hospital, Sweden approved the PET imaging.

Tau-PET processing and analysis
Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) were calculated using an inferior cerebellar reference region for [ 18 F] RO948-PET (tau-PET) [43].Using the geometric transfer matrix method [44], partial volume correction (PVC) was performed.See Leuzy et al. [42] for a detailed description of our processing pipeline.
[ 18 F]RO948-PET positivity was defined using a previously defined cut-off of a SUVR > 1.362 [42] based on Gaussian Mixture Modeling in the temporal meta-ROI corresponding to Braak I-IV [45].
Tau-PET uptake was measures in two early regions (I) a composite MTL region from ASHS comprising ERC and BA35 from ASHS and (II) the amygdala from ASHS.The decision to use only ERC and BA35 was based on two aspects: (I) it reduces the potential bias caused by off target binding that typically occur around the hippocampus, (II) ERC and BA35 typically show the earliest accumulation of cortical tau pathology [14].Using clusters previously defined with an event-based modelling (EBM) approach, see [46], tau-PET composite measures were calculated for four EBM-based regions of interest (lateral temporal, parietal, frontal, occipital/motor), that match the neocortical composite regions.Lastly, a composite tau-PET SUVR was calculated for the LEADS signature [41].

White matter hyperintensity volume processing and analysis
Using FreeSurfer 7.2 Sequence Adaptive Multimodal SEGmentation (SAMSEG) functionality [47,48], white matter hyperintensities (WMH) were segmented from the T2-weighted FLAIR sequence.Whole brain WMH volumes were calculated per participant, corrected for ICV (using volume-to-ICV fractions) and log-transformed.This measure was used for primary analyses.Due to the distribution of the data (many participants with very low values), WMH volumes were also split into low/high based on median-split and used in sensitivity analyses.

Statistical analyses
Analyses were performed in R 4.0.2[49].All p-values were controlled for the false discovery rate (FDR, Benjamini-Hochberg procedure).P-values were considered statistically significant at p < .05.Group comparisons did not by default include age as a covariate, since the AD groups are defined by age.Only comparisons between controls and respective AD groups included age as covariate in sensitivity analyses.
Differences in demographic variables were tested using t-tests or chi-square tests.We examined group differences between aEOAD and aLOAD with respective controls and with each other for demographics and cognitive measures.
For our main aim, we examined group differences between aEOAD and aLOAD with respective controls and with each other for volume/thickness of the MTL regions of interest (3 comparisons) using one-way ANCOVAs along with post-hoc Tukey's HSD Test for multiple comparisons, including sex as covariate.We also investigate the interaction between age group (young vs. old) and diagnosis (CU vs. AD) in a linear regression model for each region in order to investigate if morphological metrics (i.e.volume or thickness) are differently affected by aging and disease state.
In addition, we characterized the aEOAD and aLOAD groups further by examining group differences between aEOAD and LOAD with respective controls and with each other.This analysis was conducted, first, for the thickness of neocortical composite regions.We used ANCOVA to investigate group differences and performed linear regression models for each region with the interaction between age and diagnosis.Second, groups were compared for all biomarkers of AD-and co-pathologies.We used ANCOVA for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for categorical variables to assess group differences for the positivity on the aHC/PHC ratio (MRI-based proxy for potential TDP-43 positivity), as well as binarized WMH volume (low vs. high).In all analyses, sex was included as covariate.
As sensitivity analyses, age was included as covariate for comparisons between AD groups and controls.Second, for comparisons of AD-and co-pathologies, we included also CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio as a covariate to investigate if differences between all group comparisons were influenced by Aβ.Additional analyses additionally investigated group differences between aEOAD and aLOAD for the both LEADS signature thickness and tau-PET SUVR.

Secondary analyses
As exploratory analyses, we aim to investigate if different pathologies could explain lower region of interest volume/thickness within the aEOAD group.To this end, we performed linear regressions predicting region of interest volume/thickness using biomarkers of AD-and copathologies including age and sex as covariates.
We explored group comparisons for cognitive performance (ADAS-cog delayed word recall, animal fluency, trail-making test B, VOSP cube, BNT-15).ANOVAs were used including sex and education as covariates.We also explore if differences in volume/thickness were associated with cognitive performance within the aEOAD group, including education level, age, and sex as covariates.
In a final step, we also explored group comparisons for the amnestic and non-amnestic EOAD (aEOAD vs. naEOAD) and LOAD (aLOAD vs. naLOAD) groups.The non-amnestic individuals are included only in this section of the secondary analyses.

Demographics
The sample consisted of 534 older adults (56.9% female, mean age 69.2, mean education 12.8 years, 47.4% were APOE-ɛ4 carriers).The demographics of the aEOAD (n = 41) and aLOAD (n = 154) groups as well as the two control groups are shown in Table 1.The demographics of the non-amnestic AD groups (naEOAD: n = 7, naLOAD: n = 16) are shown in sTable S3.Comparing aEOAD vs. LOAD, no differences in sex, education, MMSE, or APOE status were observed.A significant difference between aLOAD and respective controls was observed for sex (lower proportion of males in the AD groups), and, as expected, APOE status (higher proportion of APOE-ɛ4 carriership in the AD groups).There was no difference in diagnosis between aEOAD and aLOAD groups.Despite selecting amnestic AD patients and controls from the same age range, age was statistically significantly different between amnestic AD groups and the respective controls, likely due to non-normal distributions within the AD groups.While the age difference is likely negligible due to same age range and overlapping mean and standard deviations of AD groups with controls, we did adjust for age in sensitivity analyses when comparing the amnestic AD groups to their respective control groups.

Amnestic EOAD shows medial temporal lobe subfield involvement
A statistically significant difference in mean value was found for all MTL regions of interest for both aEOAD and aLOAD compared to respective control groups (Fig. 1, supplementary results sTable S4).The biggest differences comparing aEOAD with controls were observed in amygdala, BA35, and total hippocampus (z-score mean differences = 1.89, 1.70, -1.68 respectively, all p < .001).The biggest differences comparing aLOAD with controls were observed in entorhinal cortex, amygdala, and total  significant (sTable S5).These results contrast with previous reports which suggested limited involvement of the MTL in aEOAD (see sTable S4).Including age as covariate did not change these results (see sTable S4).Focusing on the differences between aEOAD and aLOAD, significantly lower volume or thickness was found in aLOAD compared to aEOAD in five regions: subiculum (mean difference = 0.50, p FDR =0.004), dentate gyrus (mean difference = 0.38, p FDR =0.042), Cornu Ammonis 1 (mean difference = 0.39, p FDR =0.042), entorhinal (mean difference = 0.78, p FDR =0.003), and parahippocampal cortex (mean difference = 0.68, p FDR <0.001).Also, total hippocampal volume differed between aEOAD and aLOAD (mean difference = 0.50, p FDR =0.011, Fig. 1, sTable S4).

Further characterization of amnestic EOAD and LOAD Neocortical thickness differences in amnestic EOAD vs. LOAD for frontal and lateral temporal cortices
As additional analyses, potential differences in thickness of neocortical regions in aEOAD and aLOAD were investigated.When comparing AD groups with their respective controls, a statistically significant difference was found for all neocortical regions of interest (sFig.S12A).The pattern of atrophy between aEOAD and aLOAD compared with respective controls was similar for all regions except for lateral and medial parietal cortices, for which the interaction between age group and diagnosis was also significant, indicating more prominent atrophy in the aEOAD group (sFig.S12B).Additionally, significantly lower lateral temporal and frontal thickness was found in LO-compared to aEOAD (p FDR =0.031, 95%-C.I.=[-0.728,-0.051] and p FDR =0.014, 95%-C.I.=[-0.841,-0.116] respectively; sFig.S12).
Lastly, comparisons of thickness in the LEADS signature were performed.Both aEOAD and aLOAD showed significantly thinner thickness compared to controls but no differences between aEOAD and aLOAD (see sFig.S13).

Amnestic EOAD shows a similar AD-and co-pathology burden as amnestic LOAD compared to controls
In a next step, we investigated potential differences in aEOAD vs. aLOAD with regards to common pathologies often accumulating in and related to MTL atrophy.Comparing AD groups with respective controls, a statistically significant difference in mean value was found for most AD pathologies and co-pathologies, indicating significantly higher pathology burden in the AD groups (MTL tau-PET SUVR, aHC/PHC ratio as TDP-43 proxy, CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio; Fig. 2, supplementary material sTable S6).Only the total volume of WMH did not differ significantly between aLOAD and controls (p FDR =0.085).The results remained consistent when including age as covariate, except that a significant difference between aLOAD and controls was found for WMH (p FDR =0.033, see supplementary results sTable S7).
Focusing on the differences between aEOAD and aLOAD, we found a statistically significant higher mean value for WMH in aLOAD compared to aEOAD (p FDR <0.001, 95%-C.I.=[0.056,0.170]; Fig. 2; see supplementary sTable S6 and sFig.S14 for results using a dichotomized white matter hyperintensity measure).No differences in biomarkers of AD (MTL tau-PET and CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio) were observed between aEOAD and aLOAD (Fig. 2).Additionally, no differences between aEOAD and aLOAD were observed in the proportion of positivity for MRI-based proxy of TDP-43 pathology (Fig. 2, sTable S6).Results of these group comparisons did not change when accounting for CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio in the models.
Comparisons of tau-PET uptake in all four neocortical composite regions and the LEADS signature show higher uptake in AD groups compared to controls and aEOAD showed a significantly higher tau-PET uptake in these neocortical composite regions compared to aLOAD (see sTable S6, sFig.S13 and sFig.S15).

Associations between AD-and co-pathologies and atrophy in amnestic EOAD
In order to explore potential associations between ADand co-pathologies and the structural measures, we focused only on the regions of interest which showed significant differences between aEOAD and aLOAD (total hippocampus (including subiculum, dentate gyrus, and cornu ammonis 1), entorhinal, parahippocampal; see sFig.S16).
Only the proxy of the presence of TDP-43 pathology was significantly associated with smaller total hippocampal volumes (std.β=-0.63,p FDR <0.001).However, this association may be due to the definition of the measure considering the anterior hippocampus constitutes a large proportion of total hippocampal volume.

Cognitive performance in amnestic EOAD
Exploring group differences in cognitive performance, worse performance of the AD groups compared to respective controls was observed for all cognitive measures, while lower verbal fluency and naming abilities in aLOAD compared to aEOAD were observed (see sTable S8).No significant associations between MTL atrophy and performance on cognitive domains dependent on the MTL (episodic memory, naming, semantic fluency) were found for the aEOAD group (see sFig.S17).frontal cortex.To further characterize the AD groups, we focused on biomarkers of AD and non-AD pathologies that often affect the MTL.The amnestic EOAD grouped showed higher neocortical tau-PET uptake but lower WMH burden, compared to amnestic LOAD.However, no differences were observed for our proxy of TDP-43.Lastly, the proxy of TDP-43 positivity was associated with smaller hippocampal volumes indicating a potential involvement in driving atrophy in this region.
Our results show that the MTL is affected in amnestic AD, irrespective of age.This may seem in contrast with previous reports showing evidence of relative sparing of the MTL in EOAD [1,50,51].However, since prior studies commonly grouped all EOAD subtypes together, except e.g [52]. it is possible that MTL atrophy in these studies was concealed by other phenotypes.The importance of the MTL in memory function [13], suggests that an amnestic type of AD should be associated with MTL atrophy, regardless of age of onset, a notion that is supported by our findings.
Even though we observed lower MTL thickness in amnestic EOAD when comparing with controls, amnestic LOAD still shows more atrophy within the MTL (e.g., lower thickness in entorhinal cortex compared to aEOAD).This may be due to several reasons.First, there may be non-specific aging effects on these cortical structures leading to more atrophy in the older patient group.Second, for some individuals, pathologies may have a longer duration of accumulation in these regions, potentially exerting an effect on structure for a longer duration resulting in more atrophy.Previous reports of increased parietal atrophy in EOAD [1] were supported in our amnestic EOAD sample, given the significant interaction between age and diagnosis for parietal regions, indicating more prominent atrophy in the amnestic EOAD group than in amnestic LOAD.Additionally, we did observe higher levels of tau-PET uptake in parietal regions in the amnestic EOAD group, which may potentially contribute to the more pronounced atrophy in this region.
In comparison to respective controls, the amnestic AD groups show similar significant increased frequency or severity in the investigated co-pathologies.The only exception was observed for WMH which were increased in amnestic EOAD, but not in amnestic LOAD, where the results were more inconsistent.The fact that the amnestic EOAD group shows a similar level of co-pathologies as amnestic LOAD may be due to faster accumulation of pathologies, such as tau, but could also reflect a lack of resilience to pathologies.The mechanisms behind the presence of these co-pathologies for amnestic EOAD despite younger age remains to be elucidated.
It is of interest that no differences between amnestic EOAD and LOAD were found for a common co-pathology, the proxy of TDP-43 pathology.Previously, it has been reported significantly less TDP-43 proteinopathy in EOAD compared to LOAD [5].This was not replicated in the present study using a proxy of TDP-43 based on the observed anterior to posterior gradient of TDP-43 occurrences in the MTL [40].It is possible that the proxy, established in an autopsy cohort, does not replicate to our cohort, even though a similar cut-off was found when replicating it in our cohort (693 vs. 645) using Gaussian mixture modeling without postmortem validation.The fact that no difference between AD groups was observed could, however, also be due to a smaller sample size compared to what the study by Spina and colleagues [5] included and the indirect nature of our measure for presence of TDP-43.Nevertheless, we did find that our measure of TDP-43 positivity was associated with lower hippocampal volume in the amnestic EOAD group, indicating a potential driving factor of atrophy specific to aEOAD, which must be replicated in a larger sample.
Previous studies have reported a higher burden of AD pathology in amnestic EOAD compared to LOAD [2,5,53].We found that amnestic EOAD shows more neocortical tau pathology while presenting similar levels of MTL tau to amnestic LOAD.Our results are, thus, in line with the notion of EOAD showing a more aggressive disease progression with faster cognitive decline and accumulation of pathology [1] and previous observations of higher levels of tau accumulation in younger individuals [54].This adds to the existing literature since evidence for this faster progression has not been investigated specifically in an amnestic EOAD sample.The null results regarding our analyses associating co-pathologies with MTL structural measures in amnestic EOAD are likely due to limited power.Lastly, while EOAD is thought to be characterized by a steeper cognitive decline over time [55], we found that the aLOAD sample showed worse performance in semantic fluency and picture-naming abilities compared to aEOAD.Nevertheless, a longitudinal investigation of these factors should be conducted in a larger sample and employing a more finegrained neuropsychological assessment.

Strengths and limitations
Strengths of the current study include the fine-grained investigation of MTL subfields, the use of a highly characterized cohort with various biomarkers of (co-)pathologies available, and the focus on amnestic EOAD as a separate group.Additionally, a new reliable automated segmentation for the whole amygdala is presented.However, the study also presents some limitations.First, the sample size of the amnestic EOAD group is relatively small.While this corresponds to the lower proportion of EOAD in the general population [56], it results in lower statistical power.Thus, future studies should investigate a larger sample of amnestic EOAD.Second, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow us to draw conclusions about potential more aggressive courses or larger atrophy rates between groups.Third, cognitively unimpaired participants are enriched for APOE-ε4 allele carriership in the BioFINDER-2 study [23] and, in this study, the younger control group showed a larger percentage of APOE-positivity.A replication of this study is, thus, needed, using a control group not enriched for APOE status.

Conclusions
In summary, we found a largely similar MTL atrophy pattern in amnestic EOAD compared to LOAD in this crosssectional study.Interestingly, besides lower white matter hyperintensity volumes and higher neocortical tau PET in amnestic EOAD compared to amnestic LOAD, no differences in other AD-and co-pathologies, such as MTL tau-PET, and our proxy of TDP-43 were observed between amnestic EOAD and LOAD.These results suggests that the driving mechanisms of the amnestic symptoms in both groups might be largely similar and resulting in similar atrophy patterns within the MTL.

Fig. 1
Fig.1aEOAD and aLOAD group differences and to respective controls in medial temporal lobe subfield volume/thickness.The figure shows the group comparisons for all medial temporal lobe subfield measures, indicating significant differences of amnestic AD groups to respective controls, but limited differences between aEOAD and aLOAD.Separate ANOVAs were performed for each comparison.Post-hoc comparisons focused on three group differences: young controls vs. aEOAD, older controls vs. aLOAD, and aEOAD vs. aLOAD.Significant differences are shown using FDR-corrected p-values; *=p FDR < .05;**=p FDR < .001.The measures were z-scored based on young cognitively unimpaired individuals (< 40, CSF Aβ42/40 negative).All analyses included sex as a covariate.Results for the neocortical regions are included in the supplementary information.Non-amnestic individuals were not considered for these analyses.Abbreviations: aEOAD = amnestic early-onset Alzheimer's Disease; aLOAD = amnestic late-onset Alzheimer's disease; OCU = older cognitively unimpaired controls; YCU = younger cognitively unimpaired controls

Table 1
Characteristics of the amnestic EOAD and LOAD groups and respective controls Continuous variables are displayed as mean ± SD.Categorical variables are displayed as n (%).Bold p-values are statistically significant at p < 0.05 Abbreviations Aβ = amyloid-beta; AD = Alzheimer's disease; aEOAD = amnestic early-onset cognitive impairment, aLOAD = amnestic late-onset cognitive impairment; APOE = apolipoprotein E; CU = cognitively unimpaired; CSF = cerebrospinal fluid; MCI = mild cognitive impairment; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination; OCU = older cognitively unimpaired controls; SD = standard deviation; YCU = younger cognitively unimpaired controls a individuals who reported an age-of-onset under 65 were included in the EOAD group.b Aβ positivity: <0.08 on CSF Aβ42/40 ratio.The demographic information of the non-amnestic EOAD and LOAD individuals can be found in sTable S3 and are not included in the total of this table hippocampus (mean differences = 1.59, 1.55, 1.55 respectively, all p < .001).These results indicate similar atrophy patterns across the medial temporal lobe (sFig.S11) between aEOAD and aLOAD, which was also confirmed by the lack of statistically significant interactions between age and diagnosis (sTable S5).The only exception was ERC where larger atrophy in aLOAD appears and the interaction between age group and diagnosis was